Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 433 (ORI)

Babaji Pradhan v. Govinda Chandra Sahoo

2003-06-26

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2003
JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Plaintiffs are the petitioners as against the order passed on 15.4.2000 in Misc.Appeal No.89 of 1998 by learned First Addl.District Judge, Cuttack. By the impugned order learned Addl. District Judge set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack on 30.7.1998 in Misc.Case No.284 of 1997 (under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.). The concerned defendants, i.e., defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the opposite parties in this revision. 2. The disputed land is plot No.1307/4 situated in Cuttack township. Litigations with respect to the suit land has a chequered carrier and a detail narration in that respect has been made by the Courts below, thus reiteration of the same is not necessary to dispose of this Civil Revision. In a nut-shell, plaintiff’s claim over the disputed suit property is on the basis of an agreement for sale said to have been executed by the defen¬dant No.1 on 15.12.1989. On the other hand defendant No.2 claims title and possession in the basis of a registered sale deed exe¬cuted in his favour by the defendant No.1 on 4.1.1990 and the symbolical delivery of possession taken in Execution Case No.71 of 1985. While considering the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. learned Civil Judge found that the suit being one for specific performance of the agreement for sale, therefore, possession claimed by the plaintiffs is required to be protected until the dispute relating to enforceability of the agreement for sale is decided in the suit. Learned Addl.District Judge on the other hand accepted prima facie value of the evidence regarding delivery of possession through Court and thereby prima facie proof of possession of the defendants over the case land and the suit being prima faciely appearing to be barred by time, because the suit was instituted in the year 1998, i.e., about nine years after the date of agreement, passed the impugned order vacating the order of temporary injunction. 3. While issuing notice on admission of the Civil Revision on 10.5.2002 in Misc.Case No.263 of 2000 this Court passed order directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit proper¬ties and that order was made operative till 11.7.2000. Therea¬fter, on 22.3.2001 another similar order was passed in Misc.Case No.57 of 2001 by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on date. Therea¬fter, on 22.3.2001 another similar order was passed in Misc.Case No.57 of 2001 by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on date. That order was extended from time to time and on 29.11.2001 the order of status quo was made absolute as per Order No.14. However, on 8.4.2002 that order of status quo was vacated, because the petitioner sought for adjournment of the revision. 4. While arguing on merit on 4.2.2003 learned counsel for the petitioners suggested to dispose of the Civil Revision by maintaining the order of status quo with a direction to the trial Court for disposal of the suit expeditiously. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2/opp. party though agreed for early disposal of the suit but did not agree for continuance of the order of status quo. He argued that because of the interim order he has lost possession of one room from the suit premises and that be restored to him. 5. After due consideration of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned Addl.District Judge in refusing to grant temporary injunction and vacating the order passed by the Civil Judge. It is the admitted position of law that the revisional Court shall not interfere with the orders of the lower Court in the absence of jurisdictional eror or illegality. Under such circumstance the impugned order of the Additional District Judge is not interfered with. On consideration of the contention of the petitioner, as noted above, this Court finds, not with a view to protect the plaintiffs but to see early disposal of the suit which hinges on the sole point as to whether the agreement for sale is genuine and enforceable that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. It is not necessary that a civil suit is instituted it should be kept pending for years when devices can be found out for early adjudi¬cation of the dispute. This Court thus directs that the status quo over the suit property which exists as on today (the date of this judgment) shall be maintained by the parties for a period of four months and the suit shall be disposed of by the trial Court within that period. This Court thus directs that the status quo over the suit property which exists as on today (the date of this judgment) shall be maintained by the parties for a period of four months and the suit shall be disposed of by the trial Court within that period. In the event the suit could not be disposed of within the targeted period, then if an application shall be filed by the plaintiffs for extension of that status quo order then the trial Court shall consider the same affording opportuni¬ty of hearing to both the parties. In that respect the trial Court shall see that if non-disposal of the suit within the targeted period is attributable to any dilatory tactices or unreasonable attitude of the defendants then and then only the order of status quo shall be extended and not otherwise. There¬fore it must be the endeavour of both the parties to co-operate with the Court below for disposal of the suit within the above targeted period. Learned Civil Judge is also directed to go through this order and to plan the proceeding of the suit in such a manner that the suit shall be disposed of within the above targeted period and he shall report compliance. In the event of non-disposal he shall furnish a report along with the copies of the order-sheets explaining the circumstances for non-disposal. The Civil Revision is disposed of accordingly. Send back the L.C.R. to the Court below immediately. The Registry shall ensure that the L.C.R. is received in the Court below within a period of three days from today. Revision disposed of.